On 06 Feb 2013, at 17:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 9:55:45 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Feb 2013, at 11:19, Simon Forman wrote:

On Monday, February 4, 2013 12:22:53 PM UTC-8, Craig Weinberg wrote:


On Monday, February 4, 2013 3:09:16 PM UTC-5, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

but there is a self reference when we try to imagine how the brain or a computer process geometry, and we imagine them embedded in the space and time that they create, which is not a correct intuition. we must imagine it in no time and no space. IMHO.

That's what I think too, geometry without space isn't geometry, so that there is no reason to assume that mathematics produces geometric presentations, or that it could possibly produce them. If we want mathematics to occupy space, we have to pull that possibility out of thin air, as well as the capacity for numbers to suddenly do that (and why would they need to?)

Craig



Doesn't the quantum physical reality of information mean that all math *is* geometry?

Put another way, math without a substratum would be in some platonic world, and not the real one,

How do you know that? See the paper below(*) for an argument showing that if we are machine, then the physical reality is *only* emergent from arithmetic. Moon and stars are coherent "number's dream", and this can be tested. So if you want a material substratum, you need to assume that you and your brain are not Turing emulable.

(*) http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

I'm just talking about geometric presentations though. If we accept that Moon and stars are coherent "number's dreams", then why are they not presented that way, but instead, as a-signifying shape relations? Where does the shapeness come from?

Moon and stars are not not numbers dreams, but image appearing *in* the content of those dreams. The shapeness is easy to explain from the number relations and number self-reference, as I illustrate with some details.

Bruno





Craig

Bruno

so aren't you basically asking if there's some way to do math without form?

Forgive me if I'm being an idoit. ;)

~Simon

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to